Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/08/1982 Meeting e - e \ M I NUT E S Eugene City Council Dinner Session Eugene Electric Station February 8, 1982 5 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Gus Keller, Mark Lindberg, Emily Schue, Gretchen Miller, D. W. (Bill) Hamel, Brian Obie, Cynthia Wooten, Betty Smith, City Manager Micheal Gleason, Assistant City Manager Dave Whitlow, planners Jody Miller and Pat Decker, Traffic Engineer Jim Hanks, Community Relations Director Carol Baker, Council Administrator Pat Lynch, Susan Pack representing the Eugene Register-Guard. I. WEST UNIVERITY REFINEMENT PLAN (WURP) (memo of February 5, Planning Commission's recommendation incorporated into the planned draft, four pieces of testimony distributed) A. How the West University Refinement Plan Fits into the Metro Plan Ms. Decker explained that the land in plan area is designated in the Metro Plan for high-density residential, commercial, and institutional uses. Using an overhead projector, she reviewed the following elements of the Metro Plan applicable to the West University Refinement Plan: A. Residential Land Use and Housing Element, findings 10 and 11; objectives 4, 5, 7, and 8; policies 17, 21, 25, 29, and 30. B. Economic Element Findings, 3 and 14; policies 1 and 12. D. Williamette River Greenway, River Corridors and Waterway Element Policies, 4 and 5. E. Environmental Design Element, policies 1, 4, and 7. F. Transportation Element Objectives, 1,4; policies 2 and 4. G. Public Utility Services and Facilities Element policy 9. I. Historic Preservation Element, the goals and objectives 2. J. Energy Element, policies 7 and 8. Ms. Decker said the councilors would be provided with copies of the material. Jody Miller added that staff feels that the refinement plan is in compliance with the Metro Plan. B. Issues Raised at the Public Hearing January 25, 1982 (memo distributed) 1. Issue: 6th Clinic South of 13th in Residential Area, 1461 Hilyard The Planning Commission recommendation was to treat all clinics south of 13th the same, allowing expansion through the conditional use permit process onto land under developmental control as of December 1, 1981. Staff recommended that council treat the clinic at 1461 Hilyard in the same manner as the other five clinics. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February I, 1981 Page 1 ~ "' 2. Issue: School Di stricts Concern Regard ing Transportat ion and Parking Element in Proposal 2 ~ Since the council studied the issue at a previous meeting, they discussed the action taken since that last meeting. Mr. Gleason had met with the Superin- tendent of schools. City and school district staffs are working on an agreement concerning several issues of interest to both parties. Mr. Gleason assured the School Board and the Superintendent that this issue was in the planning stages, it would have to be dealt with in the T-2000 proposal at the L-COG level, the TIP process, and at the level of design and construction. Ms. Miller said staff has been in contact with the school district planner. Revision of the graphics to remove the dotted line depicting a proposed street through the school district facilities would make the school district more comfortable and would be agreeable to the City. Changes in the proposal to mention avoiding increased traffic counts on High Street, a residential street, and stating that, in planning the intersection at 19th and Amazon, the City would coordinate with affected property owners such as School District 4-J, would make the district more comfortable about the plan. e 3. Issue: Housing Ms. Miller reviewed the testimony concerning housing (page 3 of the memo). Staff had contacted existing clinics in residential zones south of 13th Avenue to determine which parcels were under development control as of December 1, 1982. Serenity Lane at 16th and Hilyard has one and one-half parcels not under their conditional use permit. The total residential units of their area under develop- mental control is 10. The clinic at 1667 High Street has owned for several years a parcel on 17th Avenue. The other clinics have not obtained additional land. There are a total of 11 units on 2-1/2 parcels under the development of existlng clinics. Ms. Miller reviewed the rest of the testimony (page 3 of the memo) concerning housing. 4. Issue: Changes in the Introductory Text Ms. the the the Miller noted that the Planning Commission. introductory text are consensus items. testimony objected to the changes in the text made by She noted (in the December 17 memo) that "changes to of less importance" to the Planning Commission than 5. Issue: Transportation and Parking Element Changes Ms. Miller explained public testimony indicated concerns about polices 3, 5, and 7 and proposal 7. Policy 3 concerned the east-west bike travel on 12th, 13th, and 15th. Policy 5 concerned street types and staff proposed rewording in the memorandum. Policy 7 concerned institutional access. The Planning Commission recommendation was based on concerns of the Public Works Department that the City cannot deny access to an institution if it is not located on an arterial. Mr. Hanks explained there are places where it is more appropriate to have access on a side street than on an arterial. Testimony of the neighbors indicated access should be from arterials in order not to clog residential streets. The proposal regarding parking structures was changed by the Planning Commission. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February f, 1981 Page 2 e e e ;;. Ms. Miller read the Planning Commission's wording (Planning Commission minutes September 29, 1981, meeting, pages 2-3) and the plan draft wording. Councilors agreed that there was a change in emphasis. Ms. Miller explained the neighbor- hood planning team was aware that the state of the art in parking structures was that it is more economical to demolish them than to recycle them. However, they wished to emphasize re-use in the wording. Developers and Public Works staff testified that re-use was not economically feasible. The councilors concluded this issue concerned not only demolition of parking structures but their location, screening, and night security lighting. 5. Issue: Mixed-Use Areas Ms. Miller briefed the council on the testimony and recommendations of the Planning Commission (pages 12-15 and Land Use Diagram Planning Commission Recommendation). In the plan draft one mixed-use area is on 12th Street and the others are in the commercially zoned areas. Residents of the West University area testified that they like the mixed-use designation. They were concerned about the Planning Commission's change to "commercial" on the diagram. It was suggested that a designation called "commercial with housing" might be used. Ms. Miller said 12th Avenue is the most controversial area in the plan. The Planning Commission recommended that clinics be an outright use in the area north of 13th and be a conditional use in R-4 city-wide. They recommended that site review be attached to residentially zoned areas north of 13th. Site review will not deny use. The plan draft said that clinics should be a conditional use on 12th Avenue and that there should be a residential predominance. The medical community was concerned that the conditional use permit process would be used to deny clinics on 12th. 6. Issue: Procedural Objections Ms. Miller discussed the testimony concerning procedure. The three objections raised at the council hearing were: 1) the Planning Commission continued to receive testimony after its own deadlines; 2) additional introductory text findings, policies, and proposals were added to the commission's recommendation after the November 10 public hearing; and 3) the neighborhood group does not permit property owners to vote. Ms. Miller reviewed the memorandum of February 5, 1981, page 6, concerning procedural concerns. Ms. Miller discussed the third procedural issue concerning property owners not being allowed to vote at the neighborhood level. The neighborhood recognition policy is adopted by the City Council. It is an issue that will come before the council for review in the future. Mr. Lindberg distilled the issues: Should the economic centers be able to expand to improve the economy? Should high-density housing be made available in the downtown area? Should low-income housing be preserved? He asked for more facts and figures from other studies. Ms. Decker suggested that regardless of the information generated, the council needed to clarify policy direction. It would be more productive to balance the residential-commercial interests in a policy decision and direction. Mr. Lindberg asked if the tools were there for MINUTES--Eugene City Council February I, 1981 Page 3 -; e e - .... '. implementation. Ms. Miller said the council's central area housing strategies, such as the tax deferral program, etc., could be used. Incentives would need to be provided to have adequate central area housing. Councilor Miller questioned the findings in the December 14 memo to. the Planning Commission regarding the expansion of Sacred Heart Hospital and the demand for 62-141 additional physicians. She asked who prepared the estimation of future expansion, upon what they based the estimates, and how this related to the fact that the hospital is laying off personnel and the allegations that there are empty beds in the hospital. Ms. Jody Miller replied the findings concerning the Sacred Heart expansion were from Sacred Heart. The findings regarding future demand for clinic space are trend data from the medical community and Economic Consultants Oregon. The current recession would move the trend data back. Ms. Schue asked how density in the medical offices could be created. She was concerned and hoped that current low-income housing would be preserved. Ms. Miller said the Planning Commission considered minimum intensive requirements for clinics and concluded that the economics of clinic development at that land cost would dictate that clinics be intense. Ms. Schue noted that recently a house was moved and the use converted to a clinic/emergency room. Ms. Miller said legislating intensity has never been done that they were aware of. Ms. Decker reviewed the discussion of the Planning Commission and their conclusion that they would use site review along with economic conditions to obtain inten- sity of use. Mr. Gleason added that if the City required criteria in the site review and in the plan, the applicant would have to use those as part of their findings. Criteria could be made to require intensity. Ms. Miller said that the conditional use tool would be better than the site review to require inten- s ity of use. Councilor Miller questioned whether the Planning Commission considered the physicians' declared need to be near the hospital. Ms. Decker said there was a discussion and disagreement even in the medical community about what doctors should be near hospitals. Mr. Obie and other councilors suggested they review the question of why doctors needed to be near the hospital. Ms. Miller replied that they could list the practices that needed to be near the hospital. There are problems with policing clinic land use and property owners do not want their property to be limited to renting to certain practices. Councilors recognized that doctors were dispersed throughout the city. Ms. Schue wanted to pursue how the City could assure that clinics were put in buildings that were an intense use of land. Ms. Wooten felt that housing was given "short shrift" in the Planning Commission's document. She had asked staff what the conditions were of "conditional use" and "mixed use" and what could be attached to site review criteria. She referred the councilors to the document prepared by staff to explain these designations. Mr. Lindberg suggested a possibility of clinics on the first floor and housing above. While councilors were open to the suggestion, they raised the question of available mortgage money and physicians' openness to being landlords. Mr. Lindberg suggested the experience of Washington Abbey might have answers for the councilors. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February~, 1981 Page 4 ~ - e e ~ Ms. Decker explained the advantages of R-4 conditional use over a mixed-use designation. She suggested a discussion of refining R-4 conditional use to achieve the goals of the City. Mr. Obie observed the controversy revolved around a six-block area. He suggested considering a special district with certain requirements for the area. Ms. Miller listed the commercial areas around the hospital available for clinic use. The residential zoning on 12th is an area of about three blocks. Councilors concluded that they needed to tour the area and look at the open space and the number of housing units. Staff was asked to schedule the tour. Meeting was adjourned. ~Respectfu~lY su:mit1' -<:.c~V?' Mic eal D. Gle n City Manager (Recorded by Beth Conant) MDG:BC:pv/CM8a17 MINUTES--Eugene City Council February ~, 1981 Page 5 .4